The current unemployment rate isn't real

[CowboyTed]

Despite far left propaganda!

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

As they say, the numbers do not lie!

Actually you just showed a classic deception... The second graph shows participation but you are not counting demographics of the labour force. The reason for the rise from the sixties is mainly put down to women joining the labour force but now the Baby boomers are retiring...

So trying to blame the White house for people getting old....


So Kosh you are actually a liar.

 

[edthecynic]

The article merely quoted Welch if you read it you'd see how the author delved into the methodology of the UE numbers

But you didn't read it

Actually I did read it which is how I know it is full of shit. How is it that you didn't know?

There were too many lies to go through each one, but he starts with the lie that 60,000 households of the ~120,000 total US households is too small.

Then he lies about discouraged workers not being counted after 52 weeks even if they continue to look for work, that he backs with another lie that that change was made in 1994. As long as they looked for work within the last 52 weeks they are still counted as discouraged no matter how long they have been unemployed.

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

Funny how a guy who used to calculate the UE numbers says they're wrong

The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong, Says Guy Who Used To Make It

Yeah, just another Right-wing asshole too stupid to understand that Boomers are retiring.

 

[Kosh]

Despite far left propaganda!

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

As they say, the numbers do not lie!

Actually you just showed a classic deception... The second graph shows participation but you are not counting demographics of the labour force. The reason for the rise from the sixties is mainly put down to women joining the labour force but now the Baby boomers are retiring...

So trying to blame the White house for people getting old....


So Kosh you are actually a liar.

And once again the far left shows they will reach out to their far left religious blog sites for their "facts"..

And of course using yet another debunked narrative..

The numbers do not lie! But the far left drones will lie to protect their messiah at all costs!

 

[Kosh]

The article merely quoted Welch if you read it you'd see how the author delved into the methodology of the UE numbers

But you didn't read it

Actually I did read it which is how I know it is full of shit. How is it that you didn't know?

There were too many lies to go through each one, but he starts with the lie that 60,000 households of the ~120,000 total US households is too small.

Then he lies about discouraged workers not being counted after 52 weeks even if they continue to look for work, that he backs with another lie that that change was made in 1994. As long as they looked for work within the last 52 weeks they are still counted as discouraged no matter how long they have been unemployed.

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

Funny how a guy who used to calculate the UE numbers says they're wrong

The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong, Says Guy Who Used To Make It

Yeah, just another Right-wing asshole too stupid to understand that Boomers are retiring.

And you are another far left drone running your religious narratives!

 

[pinqy]

Despite far left propaganda!

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

As they say, the numbers do not lie!

Right, they don't. It is true that the labor force participation rate has been going down for the last 16 years.
What do you think that means, and what was your point in posting it?

 

[rightwinger]

i know the government is saying that unemlployment is at 5% but this number isn't a real gauge on how the country is doing as a whole. Once you remove a few states out of the statistics the average for the entire country changes. I really don't know how the statistics will be affected but it would be interesting to see how the stats will change once you remove a state like Texas from the data. I suspect t it would begin to shoot up quite dramatically.

Yea, statistics are funny that way

If you drop out the statistics that don't support your agenda things don't look as rosey

 

[pinqy]

Despite far left propaganda!

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

As they say, the numbers do not lie!

Actually you just showed a classic deception... The second graph shows participation but you are not counting demographics of the labour force. The reason for the rise from the sixties is mainly put down to women joining the labour force but now the Baby boomers are retiring...

So trying to blame the White house for people getting old....


So Kosh you are actually a liar.

And once again the far left shows they will reach out to their far left religious blog sites for their "facts"..

And of course using yet another debunked narrative..

The numbers do not lie! But the far left drones will lie to protect their messiah at all costs!

ummm what are you saying is debunked?
Almost all of the change in the participation rate has been due to non-disabled elderly (age 65+), the disabled (age 16 plus) and full time high school and college students age 16-24. Since November 2010, the participation rate has dropped 1.9%. Disabled, elderly, and students account for 1.75 of that. Would you like the math?

 

[edthecynic]

The article merely quoted Welch if you read it you'd see how the author delved into the methodology of the UE numbers

But you didn't read it

Actually I did read it which is how I know it is full of shit. How is it that you didn't know?

There were too many lies to go through each one, but he starts with the lie that 60,000 households of the ~120,000 total US households is too small.

Then he lies about discouraged workers not being counted after 52 weeks even if they continue to look for work, that he backs with another lie that that change was made in 1994. As long as they looked for work within the last 52 weeks they are still counted as discouraged no matter how long they have been unemployed.

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

Funny how a guy who used to calculate the UE numbers says they're wrong

The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong, Says Guy Who Used To Make It

Yeah, just another Right-wing asshole too stupid to understand that Boomers are retiring.

And you are another far left drone running your religious narratives!

 

[Skull Pilot]

The article merely quoted Welch if you read it you'd see how the author delved into the methodology of the UE numbers

But you didn't read it

Actually I did read it which is how I know it is full of shit. How is it that you didn't know?

There were too many lies to go through each one, but he starts with the lie that 60,000 households of the ~120,000 total US households is too small.

Then he lies about discouraged workers not being counted after 52 weeks even if they continue to look for work, that he backs with another lie that that change was made in 1994. As long as they looked for work within the last 52 weeks they are still counted as discouraged no matter how long they have been unemployed.

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

Funny how a guy who used to calculate the UE numbers says they're wrong

The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong, Says Guy Who Used To Make It

Does he say they're wrong? Let's look at the actual quotes from Dr. Hall from the orignal NY Post article your HufPo article references:
"Right now [it’s] misleadingly low"
"This has been a very slow, very bad recovery, And I think the numbers have really struggled as a result. In fact, I’ve been very disappointed in the coverage of the numbers"

That's it. Everything else is Crudele. Those two quotes aren't saying the numbers are wrong, it's saying the numbers don't tell the full story about the labor market or the economic situation. Which is true, but no one claims they do tell the full story.

He said they are most likely too low

Like they always are

 

[Muhammed]

Same formula we've used for decades.

Butthurt nutbags are funny.

So your logic is that if it's wrong...


...it must be right.


DUUUUUURRR!!!

You're a fucking idiot!

 

[Skull Pilot]

The article merely quoted Welch if you read it you'd see how the author delved into the methodology of the UE numbers

But you didn't read it

Actually I did read it which is how I know it is full of shit. How is it that you didn't know?

There were too many lies to go through each one, but he starts with the lie that 60,000 households of the ~120,000 total US households is too small.

Then he lies about discouraged workers not being counted after 52 weeks even if they continue to look for work, that he backs with another lie that that change was made in 1994. As long as they looked for work within the last 52 weeks they are still counted as discouraged no matter how long they have been unemployed.

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

Funny how a guy who used to calculate the UE numbers says they're wrong

The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong, Says Guy Who Used To Make It

Yeah, just another Right-wing asshole too stupid to understand that Boomers are retiring.

So now the BLS is a partisan entity

if you morons believe everything the fucking pathological liars in DC tell you that's your problem

And you call yourself a cynic.

 

[pinqy]

The article merely quoted Welch if you read it you'd see how the author delved into the methodology of the UE numbers

But you didn't read it

Actually I did read it which is how I know it is full of shit. How is it that you didn't know?

There were too many lies to go through each one, but he starts with the lie that 60,000 households of the ~120,000 total US households is too small.

Then he lies about discouraged workers not being counted after 52 weeks even if they continue to look for work, that he backs with another lie that that change was made in 1994. As long as they looked for work within the last 52 weeks they are still counted as discouraged no matter how long they have been unemployed.

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

Funny how a guy who used to calculate the UE numbers says they're wrong

The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong, Says Guy Who Used To Make It

Does he say they're wrong? Let's look at the actual quotes from Dr. Hall from the orignal NY Post article your HufPo article references:
"Right now [it’s] misleadingly low"
"This has been a very slow, very bad recovery, And I think the numbers have really struggled as a result. In fact, I’ve been very disappointed in the coverage of the numbers"

That's it. Everything else is Crudele. Those two quotes aren't saying the numbers are wrong, it's saying the numbers don't tell the full story about the labor market or the economic situation. Which is true, but no one claims they do tell the full story.

He said they are most likely too low

Like they always are

No, he didn't. What he meant (and I know what he meant because anyone in the field will tell you the same thing) is that the UE rate is misleading low in that there are many other factors, such as part time for economic reasons, large number of long term unemployed, and stagnant real wages that mean that the low UE rate is not a good reflection of the overall labor market. That doesn't mean there's any lies or deception or cooking of books (and Dr. Hall has stated that manipulating the data would be practically impossible), just that there is more than a single number.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The article merely quoted Welch if you read it you'd see how the author delved into the methodology of the UE numbers

But you didn't read it

Actually I did read it which is how I know it is full of shit. How is it that you didn't know?

There were too many lies to go through each one, but he starts with the lie that 60,000 households of the ~120,000 total US households is too small.

Then he lies about discouraged workers not being counted after 52 weeks even if they continue to look for work, that he backs with another lie that that change was made in 1994. As long as they looked for work within the last 52 weeks they are still counted as discouraged no matter how long they have been unemployed.

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

Funny how a guy who used to calculate the UE numbers says they're wrong

The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong, Says Guy Who Used To Make It

Does he say they're wrong? Let's look at the actual quotes from Dr. Hall from the orignal NY Post article your HufPo article references:
"Right now [it’s] misleadingly low"
"This has been a very slow, very bad recovery, And I think the numbers have really struggled as a result. In fact, I’ve been very disappointed in the coverage of the numbers"

That's it. Everything else is Crudele. Those two quotes aren't saying the numbers are wrong, it's saying the numbers don't tell the full story about the labor market or the economic situation. Which is true, but no one claims they do tell the full story.

He said they are most likely too low

Like they always are

No, he didn't. What he meant (and I know what he meant because anyone in the field will tell you the same thing) is that the UE rate is misleading low in that there are many other factors, such as part time for economic reasons, large number of long term unemployed, and stagnant real wages that mean that the low UE rate is not a good reflection of the overall labor market. That doesn't mean there's any lies or deception or cooking of books (and Dr. Hall has stated that manipulating the data would be practically impossible), just that there is more than a single number.

And the fact that a single number is all that is used tells us that there is indeed deception when it comes to reporting UE

But you go ahead and believe the idiots in DC if you want

 

[pinqy]

Actually I did read it which is how I know it is full of shit. How is it that you didn't know?

There were too many lies to go through each one, but he starts with the lie that 60,000 households of the ~120,000 total US households is too small.

Then he lies about discouraged workers not being counted after 52 weeks even if they continue to look for work, that he backs with another lie that that change was made in 1994. As long as they looked for work within the last 52 weeks they are still counted as discouraged no matter how long they have been unemployed.

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

Funny how a guy who used to calculate the UE numbers says they're wrong

The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong, Says Guy Who Used To Make It

Does he say they're wrong? Let's look at the actual quotes from Dr. Hall from the orignal NY Post article your HufPo article references:
"Right now [it’s] misleadingly low"
"This has been a very slow, very bad recovery, And I think the numbers have really struggled as a result. In fact, I’ve been very disappointed in the coverage of the numbers"

That's it. Everything else is Crudele. Those two quotes aren't saying the numbers are wrong, it's saying the numbers don't tell the full story about the labor market or the economic situation. Which is true, but no one claims they do tell the full story.

He said they are most likely too low

Like they always are

No, he didn't. What he meant (and I know what he meant because anyone in the field will tell you the same thing) is that the UE rate is misleading low in that there are many other factors, such as part time for economic reasons, large number of long term unemployed, and stagnant real wages that mean that the low UE rate is not a good reflection of the overall labor market. That doesn't mean there's any lies or deception or cooking of books (and Dr. Hall has stated that manipulating the data would be practically impossible), just that there is more than a single number.

And the fact that a single number is all that is used tells us that there is indeed deception when it comes to reporting UE

A single number??????
Monthly data


HISTORICAL
A-1. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and over, prior years to date (HTML) (PDF)
A-2. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and over by sex, recent years to date (HTML) (PDF)



SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

Employment Status
A-3. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by sex and age, seasonally adjusted (HTML) (PDF)
A-4. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, sex, and age, seasonally adjusted (HTML) (PDF)
A-5. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 25 years and over by educational attainment, seasonally adjusted (HTML) (PDF)
A-6. Employed and unemployed full- and part-time workers by sex and age, seasonally adjusted (HTML) (PDF)

Characteristics of the Employed and the Labor Force
A-7. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status, seasonally adjusted (HTML) (PDF)
A-8. Employed persons by age, sex, marital status, multiple jobholding status, and self-employment, seasonally adjusted (HTML) (PDF)
A-8a. Employed persons and employment-population ratios by age and sex, seasonally adjusted (HTML) (PDF)
A-8b. Persons in the labor force and labor force participation rates by age and sex, seasonally adjusted (HTML) (PDF)

Characteristics of the Unemployed
A-9. Unemployed persons by age, sex, and marital status, seasonally adjusted (HTML) (PDF)
A-10. Unemployment rates by age, sex, and marital status, seasonally adjusted (HTML) (PDF)
A-11. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted (HTML) (PDF)
A-12. Unemployed persons by duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted (HTML) (PDF)



NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

Employment Status
A-13. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by age, sex, and race (HTML) (PDF)
A-14. Employment status of the Hispanic or Latino population by age and sex (HTML) (PDF)
A-15. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, sex, and age (HTML) (PDF)
A-16. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 to 24 years of age by school enrollment, age, sex, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and educational attainment (HTML) (PDF)
A-17. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 25 years and over by educational attainment, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (HTML) (PDF)
A-18. Employed and unemployed full- and part-time workers by age, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (HTML) (PDF)

Characteristics of the Employed
A-19. Employed persons by occupation, sex, and age (HTML) (PDF)
A-20. Employed persons by occupation, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and sex (HTML) (PDF)
A-21. Employed persons by industry and occupation (HTML) (PDF)
A-22. Employed persons in agriculture and nonagricultural industries by age, sex, and class of worker (HTML) (PDF)
A-23. Employed persons in nonagricultural industries by sex and class of worker (HTML) (PDF)
A-24. Persons at work in agriculture and nonagricultural industries by hours of work (HTML) (PDF)
A-25. Persons at work 1 to 34 hours in all and in nonagricultural industries by reason for working less than 35 hours and usual full- or part-time status (HTML) (PDF)
A-26. Persons at work in nonagricultural industries by class of worker and usual full- or part-time status (HTML) (PDF)
A-27. Persons at work in nonagricultural industries by age, sex, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, marital status, and usual full- or part-time status (HTML) (PDF)
A-28. Persons at work by occupation, sex, and usual full- or part-time status (HTML) (PDF)

Characteristics of the Unemployed
A-29. Unemployed persons by marital status, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, age, and sex (HTML) (PDF)
A-30. Unemployed persons by occupation and sex (HTML) (PDF)
A-31. Unemployed persons by industry, class of worker, and sex (HTML) (PDF)
A-32. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, sex, and age (HTML) (PDF)
A-33. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (HTML) (PDF)
A-34. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, sex, age, and duration of unemployment (HTML) (PDF)
A-35. Unemployed total and full-time workers by duration of unemployment (HTML) (PDF)
A-36. Unemployed persons by age, sex, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, marital status, and duration of unemployment (HTML) (PDF)
A-37. Unemployed persons by occupation, industry, and duration of unemployment (HTML) (PDF)

Persons not in the Labor Force
A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex (HTML) (PDF)

Multiple Jobholders
A-39. Multiple jobholders by selected demographic and economic characteristics (HTML) (PDF)

Veteran Status
A-40. Employment status of persons 18 years and over by veteran status, age, and sex (HTML) (PDF)


Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age
Table A-3. Employment status of the Hispanic or Latino population by sex and age
Table A-4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment
Table A-5. Employment status of the civilian population 18 years and over by veteran status, period of service, and sex, not seasonally adjusted
Table A-6. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, and disability status, not seasonally adjusted
Table A-7. Employment status of the civilian population by nativity and sex, not seasonally adjusted
Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status
Table A-9. Selected employment indicators
Table A-10. Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted
Table A-11. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment
Table A-12. Unemployed persons by duration of unemployment
Table A-13. Employed and unemployed persons by occupation, not seasonally adjusted
Table A-14. Unemployed persons by industry and class of worker, not seasonally adjusted
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization
Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted
Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
Table B-2. Average weekly hours and overtime of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
Table B-4. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
Table B-5. Employment of women on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
Table B-6. Employment of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
Table B-7. Average weekly hours and overtime of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
Table B-8. Average hourly and weekly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
Table B-9. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)

 

[Kosh]

The article merely quoted Welch if you read it you'd see how the author delved into the methodology of the UE numbers

But you didn't read it

Actually I did read it which is how I know it is full of shit. How is it that you didn't know?

There were too many lies to go through each one, but he starts with the lie that 60,000 households of the ~120,000 total US households is too small.

Then he lies about discouraged workers not being counted after 52 weeks even if they continue to look for work, that he backs with another lie that that change was made in 1994. As long as they looked for work within the last 52 weeks they are still counted as discouraged no matter how long they have been unemployed.

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

Funny how a guy who used to calculate the UE numbers says they're wrong

The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong, Says Guy Who Used To Make It

Yeah, just another Right-wing asshole too stupid to understand that Boomers are retiring.

And you are another far left drone running your religious narratives!

Yes we know protect the far left/(D at all costs and only blame the other guy..

And you still run the narratives at all costs!

 

[edthecynic]

Actually I did read it which is how I know it is full of shit. How is it that you didn't know?

There were too many lies to go through each one, but he starts with the lie that 60,000 households of the ~120,000 total US households is too small.

Then he lies about discouraged workers not being counted after 52 weeks even if they continue to look for work, that he backs with another lie that that change was made in 1994. As long as they looked for work within the last 52 weeks they are still counted as discouraged no matter how long they have been unemployed.

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

Funny how a guy who used to calculate the UE numbers says they're wrong

The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong, Says Guy Who Used To Make It

Yeah, just another Right-wing asshole too stupid to understand that Boomers are retiring.

And you are another far left drone running your religious narratives!

Yes we know protect the far left/(D at all costs and only blame the other guy..

And you still run the narratives at all costs!

What "other guy" is being "blamed" by quoting ststistical facts???

See chart 4:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/09/art3full.pdf

 

[edthecynic]

The article merely quoted Welch if you read it you'd see how the author delved into the methodology of the UE numbers

But you didn't read it

Actually I did read it which is how I know it is full of shit. How is it that you didn't know?

There were too many lies to go through each one, but he starts with the lie that 60,000 households of the ~120,000 total US households is too small.

Then he lies about discouraged workers not being counted after 52 weeks even if they continue to look for work, that he backs with another lie that that change was made in 1994. As long as they looked for work within the last 52 weeks they are still counted as discouraged no matter how long they have been unemployed.

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

Funny how a guy who used to calculate the UE numbers says they're wrong

The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong, Says Guy Who Used To Make It

Yeah, just another Right-wing asshole too stupid to understand that Boomers are retiring.

So now the BLS is a partisan entity

if you morons believe everything the fucking pathological liars in DC tell you that's your problem

And you call yourself a cynic.

Except he is NOT in the BLS now, he is now a Right-wing hack for a Right-wing think tank the Mercatus Center funded by the Koch's.
But even a hack like Hall said in 2012 in an interview that there is no way someone at the agency could change any of the data from its two monthly employment surveys. The significant improvement in the unemployment rate may reflect normal statistical errors in the sampling process, he said, but that has nothing to do with manipulation.

 

[Skylar]

Same formula we've used for decades.

Butthurt nutbags are funny.

That is not true but that has been discussed on other forums.

Its exactly true. And its immediately relevant to this thread. We've used U-3 since at least the late 70s.

 

[Kosh]

Funny how a guy who used to calculate the UE numbers says they're wrong

The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong, Says Guy Who Used To Make It

Yeah, just another Right-wing asshole too stupid to understand that Boomers are retiring.

And you are another far left drone running your religious narratives!

Yes we know protect the far left/(D at all costs and only blame the other guy..

And you still run the narratives at all costs!

What "other guy" is being "blamed" by quoting ststistical facts???

See chart 4:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/09/art3full.pdf

Once again the far left will do all they can to protect their messiah!

 

[rightwinger]

Yeah, just another Right-wing asshole too stupid to understand that Boomers are retiring.

And you are another far left drone running your religious narratives!

Yes we know protect the far left/(D at all costs and only blame the other guy..

And you still run the narratives at all costs!

What "other guy" is being "blamed" by quoting ststistical facts???

See chart 4:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/09/art3full.pdf

Once again the far left will do all they can to protect their messiah!

That is just horrible
Who was President in 2001 when the labor participation rate reversed itself?